Disposed¶22

Smt Sapna Yadav and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2026WRIC/21723/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court writ petition disposed; challenge to demolition order dated 16.04.2024, sealing order dated 16.04.2024 and re-sealing direction dated 18.05.2024 by respondent no. 4; U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad notices for unauthorized construction at third floor; deviations from approved plan; auction purchasers; de-sealing directed; supervised removal of illegal construction; certiorari and mandamus reliefs; Sapna Yadav v. State of UP; WRIT-C 21723 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions that the petitioners remove the illegal portion as per the layout plan in the presence of an official of the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad, and that the authority de-seal the premises meanwhile to enable demolition of the offending part. ¶22

Smt Sapna Yadav and Another Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 21723 of 2024

¶3

Smt Sapna Yadav And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Up And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akshay Singh, Suchita	Pratap Naresh Tripathi	Singh, Jyoti Chandra	Kumar Tripahti,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ravi An Agaraw Dwivedi	and Aga al, Nip	rwal, C.S.C., un Singh,	Krishna Raghav

¶9

Court No. - 21

¶10

HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi holding brief of Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal.

¶12

The instant writ petition has been preferred in the year 2024 inter alia for the following relief :

¶13

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order of demolition dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure no. 1), impugned order of sealing of the building in question dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure no. 2) and the impugned order dated 18.05.2024 (Annexure no. 3) directing to seal the building, all passed by respondent no. 4.

¶14

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 not to give effect to the demolition order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure no. 1).

¶15

iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to remove the sealing of the building in question forthwith by permitting the petitioner no. 1 to rectify/remove the illegal

¶16

WRIC No. 21723 of 2024

¶17

¶18

construction, as precisely and specifically pointed out by respondent no. 4 and/or by his officers of the respondent department, authorized for, within the time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶19

iv. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners."

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are auction purchasers of the entire building constructed upto the 3rd floor. The U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad had issued notices for unauthorized construction at the third floor (top floor). Learned counsel submits that as there are certain deviation in the construction which is contrary to the approved plan by the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad, therefore, the entire premises has been sealed. On account of sealing order, the petitioners are suffered irreparable loss and injury. On the instructions, he submits that the petitioners are inclined to remove the offending portion in view of the order impugned in case the building is de-sealed.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances, as the petitioners have themselves volunteered before this Court to remove the illegal portion as per lay out plan, we expect that the said removal be carried out in presence of some official of the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad expeditiously and meanwhile, the authority is also directed to de-seal the premises to ensure demolition of the offending part.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶24

March 9, 2026 Priya

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sapna Yadav and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sapna Yadav and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishipal and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nimi House Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sh. Jaikaran and 3 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Dharmveer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanju Rawat and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Keshav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others